U.S. Supreme Court deals blow to whales in sonar case
- Scott Dodd
- Website Editorial Manager, New York City
- Blog | About
- Posted November 12, 2008 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first decision of the term today, and it's not the best of news for whales.
Last month, NRDC and its allies argued before the court on behalf of marine mammals that are threatened by Navy sonar exercises off the Southern California coast. Here's my account of the oral arguments and senior attorney Joel Reynolds' explanation of the legal and moral reasoning behind NRDC's fight. (You can get more background on the case in the video below.)
The Los Angeles Times, which has covered the case closely, reports on today's decision:
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a defeat to environmentalists today and cleared the way for the Navy to use high-powered sonar off the Southern California coast even if it poses a threat to whales and other marine mammals.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts said the Navy needs to train its crews to detect enemy submarines, and it cannot be forced to turn off its sonar when whales are spotted nearby. "The public interest in conducting training exercises with active sonar under realistic conditions plainly outweighs" the concerns voiced by environmentalists, he said for a 5-4 majority.
Roberts faulted judges in California for "second-guessing" the views of Navy leaders. "Where the public interest lies does not strike us as a close question," he said.
Roberts also questioned whether whales have indeed been harmed by sonar. He said the Navy had been operating off the California coast for 40 years "without a single documented sonar-related injury to any marine mammal."
The Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups strongly disagreed. They say studies conducted around the world have shown that the piercing underwater sounds cause whales to flee in panic. These studies said some whales have beached themselves and have shown signs of bleeding in their ears as a result of high-powered sonar.
Today's ruling lifts a Los Angeles judge's order that required the Navy to turn off its sonar when whales or marine mammals were seen within 1.2 miles of a ship.
The Bush administration had urged the court to take up this case and rule quickly so the Navy could conduct training exercises scheduled in the next few months.
Obviously, this isn't what the folks at NRDC who've worked so hard to protect whales were hoping for. The decision means that marine mammals are more at risk of serious harm -- harm that could be avoided if the Navy would agree to reasonable safeguards and follow the law.
There's some silver lining, though. The Supreme Court's ruling is narrow enough that it leaves in place four of the safeguards imposed by lower courts. And the justices didn't overturn those courts' underlying determination that the Navy had likely violated the law by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement before the exercises.
The Navy doesn't deny that sonar can be deadly to marine mammals, which use their sense of sound for everything from navigation to finding mates. Scientists have established a strong link between sonar use and whale deaths, and the U.S. military's own studies show that an estimated 170,000 marine mammals could be harmed by the Southern California training exercises. More than 500 would suffer permanent injury.
No one's arguing that the Navy shouldn't train its sailors and that the military shouldn't be ready to protect this country from any and all threats. But there are ways to practice that don't put precious marine life in danger. That's all that NRDC is asking for.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Eileen Mathias — Nov 12 2008 08:04 PM
This is so frustrating, and so wrong! What can be done to change it?? I wrote this to the Navy. Please add your voice!
I was so disappointed to hear the Supreme Court ruled that the Navy can use sonar in its exercises. Whales are strugglling to survive as it is, and the Navy's use of sonar will make matters worse. To disorient and harm these beautiful and intelligent animals is down right cruel and not worth the price. Man is far more capable of adapting to the world around him than are the whales, and we should do everything in our power to create conditions that allow whales to survive and even thrive. Man is perfectly capable of turning off sonar when close to these animals, and therefore should do so. It would be good "practise". I'm sorry, but since when does the Navy have to use sonar to protect itself from unstable countries? Unstable countries don't have submarines and they don't have much in the way of ships either. Humans are smart. We should be figuring out ways to protect ourselves without harming our environment. It is our moral duty and in our best interests to do so. I can't express enough how important it is to respect, love, and protect those creatures that are not able to protect themselves from our destructive tendencies.
JohnLopresti — Nov 12 2008 11:22 PM
It would be nice if the next secretary of the navy shows some presidentially reinforced initiative to redirect R+D to supplant low frequency loud-volume sonars. Educating the judiciary can be difficult in electronics technology nuances. I happened to have visited one of the earliest inventors of ultra low-frequency sonars at a time when the navy believed its potential only dimly, though several nations have acquired the methodology and grasped the physics of why it works. In a way, sonar is a misnomer for the current apparatus. The effects on marine life speak loudly, however. One of the worse SupremeCourt decisions ever. The Chief justice might attempt more balanced prose instead of the eccentric approach his writing exhibits in this decision. I would examine professional international organizations as another approach to strengthen understanding, beyond the volumes which NRDC and others have produced meticulously over many recent years and months.
Scott @ NRDC — Nov 13 2008 09:04 AM
Thanks very much for your interest and thoughts. To answer your question about what can be done, Eileen, I'll direct you to NRDC's Save BioGems website, which is devoted to protecting wildlife and wild places. Whales are on the BioGems watchlist, and the site has opportunities for you to take action with other concerned citizens and support NRDC's ongoing fight to protect marine mammals. I know the NRDC folks involved in this battle, and I can assure you that their efforts won't end just because of this setback with the Supreme Court.
Sharyn Shields — Nov 13 2008 04:42 PM
I cried when I heard the news. Not only does it disorient the whales, but I have read that it is extremely painful to them. Why do we always have to take the path that leads to the most destruction of our wildlife and beautiful places? I would take my chances with the enemy any day over subjecting these creatures, any creatures, to human induced pain and agony.
John Liffee — Nov 13 2008 05:16 PM
More than 500 injured in just the one series of naval "maneuvers"? I hadn't heard these figures before -- alarming and dramatic. How does this square with Justice Roberts' claim that Navy has operated off Cali coast for 40 years "without a single documented sonar-related injury to any marine mammal." If that's bulls***, why aren't you ripping into it?
Scott @ NRDC — Nov 13 2008 06:56 PM
Hi, John. Here's how NRDC senior attorney Joel Reynolds responded to the Navy's claim before the Supreme Court about the lack of sonar-related whale injuries off Southern California: "They weren't looking, and when you don't look, you can't find."
And attorney Richard Kendall, who argued the case on NRDC's behalf, said this: "Until very recently, no one was studying the effects of sonar (on whales) at all." It's only within the last decade or so that marine scientists have recognized this as a problem and begun researching it in depth. But now that they are, "the evidence is overwhelming," Kendall said. (You can read more about how Kendall and the Navy sparred over this before the justices in my previous account.)
Check out this NRDC report, Sounding the Depths, which lays out the extensive scientific evidence showing that sonar can be lethal to marine mammals. To cite just one example, at a recent International Whaling Convention meeting, more than 100 whale biologists concluded that the evidence associating beaked whale deaths with the use of Navy sonar "is very convincing and appears overwhelming."
For more, including a repudiation of a Navy admiral's claim that the concern about injured whales lacks "any foundation whatsoever," check out my colleague Andrew Wetzler's previous blog post about the "rock-solid science" behind sonar injuries.
John Liffee — Nov 13 2008 09:21 PM
Scott - Thanks for this.
I've followed this issue with interest for several years at least, and the science -- e.g. whales washing ashore with extensive brain hemorrhage, while sonar training was going on in the vicinity; surely just coincidence, eh? -- certainly has seemed rather self-evident to me. It's disheartening to see the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court make such a disingenuous statement. I was further PO'd by the dismissive tone of statements in the majority opinion like: "[this] does not strike us as a close question."
I really think those Navy "takings" numbers are damning. Can't believe I haven't heard them until now. How can it not matter that, by the Navy's own estimate (and gee, why might I suspect lowballing), we're not talking just a couple of animals. Hundreds permanently injured; many thousands more at risk -- and all for practice? And in just one area, over a discrete period of time? I refuse to believe there aren't alternative methods of training that are just as effective. We manage to train astronauts perfectly well without being able to give them "live" practice conditions. And five Supreme Court justices can't be bothered -- with this carnage staring them in the face -- to ask why the Navy isn't able train sonar technicians in a similar way? Shame on them.
Janis D'Angelo — Nov 14 2008 09:52 AM
I find this ruling by the supreme court very depressing. For all the years humans have inhabited this planet, how far have we really evolved? Here we are destroying the natural resources and magnifcent co-inhabitants before we really understand their purpose and mystery. I understand human motivation and action are primarily determined by fear, greed and the need for power. Only when arrogance ceases will we appreciate the grandeur of this planet. NRDC, please don't give up!
Scott Olson — Nov 18 2008 07:16 PM
I suggest that NRDC talk with president -elect barak obama about the harmful effects of the navy's sonar on cetaceans.I believe that he would understand and be sensitive to this issue.
tHE GOOD NEWS ABOUT OUR FINANCIAL COLLAPSE IS THAT OUR GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE TO CUT BACK ON MILITARY SPENDING LIMITING THE NUMBER OF NAVY SHIPS IN THE OCEAN.